Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gert wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
And yeah, I've heard a few complaints about the third act/ending, and I don't get them at all.

I think it is because people (read internet nerds) are obsessed with the idea that Batman is the opposite of Superman. Where Superman is openly good and a symbol of hope, Batman is a grim reaper of justice who only doesn't kill because of a moral code. The reality is that Batman can be that but is better when he isn't some edgelord fantasy that beats up all the criminals all the time. Stuff like when he sits with Ace as she dies in JLU or when he helps ex-cons or people in need get jobs at Wayne Enterprises so they don't go back to their old ways. That's the one I think we're hopefully going to see with this trilogy. Still dark when the needs must but a good person when it matters most.

We all know the real Batman...

Warren Ellis wrote in 2002:

It occurs to me that an awful lot of trouble in Gotham City could have been averted a long time ago if Batman had just ripped the Joker's nipples off.

I mean, treatment doesn't work, does it? They stick the Joker in the nuthatch, he comes out again and does the same things.

A man with the nipples ripped off him does not make the same mistakes twice.

Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and need the nipples ripped off them.

I mean, who's going to argue?

"Batman, I've heard disturbing reports that you ripped the Joker's nipples off."

"Choke on my feth, Commissioner Gordon."

"…okay."

I mean, crime in Gotham City doesn't exactly seem to be affected by a man dressed as a bat flapping around the place. But no-one disobeys a man wearing a necklace of human nipples.

"I'm Batman" isn't cutting it in the striking-fear-into-their-hearts stakes. But "I'm Batman — and I'm here for your nipples" is an entirely different proposition.

Criminals would see the error of their ways after a man in a black leather pervert suit had their nipples off with the edge of a Batarang, you mark my words. Or a Bat-Denipplizer.

I'm off to ring DC Comics.

 privateer4hire wrote:

Spoiler:

The friend made by the antagonist during the ending part was the only real cringe I felt. Otherwise, very decent version of the character.

It felt like the team making this understood that the relationships between the characters are what make the quality go up, not the number of fights, car chases and explosions.

Here's a deleted scene:

I'm glad they cut it. I am beyond over the Joker.

That doesn't feel like a deleted scene from the film but a fan made thing. More of a Ledger Joker impression than what we heard in the film; I recognized Barry's voice and this is not the same voice.

Edit: To be clear it is from the cutting room floor but it really doesn't feel like it fit and I'm glad it wasn't used.

Well I definitely like that Joker more than Leto's. But I agree with Ouze. Batman has other compelling villains. Lets see more of them.

Saw it over the weekend finally and really a fantastic film. My one actual major gripe is that the action relies entirely too much on the suit being completely bulletproof. He just tanks way too many shots, particularly towards the end, which was really set up to be the perfect kind of Arkham game takedown scenario.

My other big gripe is that Pattinson is just... terrible as Bruce. That's kind of the role he's given, being far more of a child that hasn't really allowed himself to become a part of Gotham. In truth, it serves the movie well and gives him room for growth and in many ways the ending serves as an origin story for the Bruce Wayne persona, but its very odd throughout the film for everything to flip to "the grownups are talking" when he's not wearing the mask.

Any complaints I have about Pattinson as Wayne vanish completely under the cowl. He's a phenomenal Batman. As a film, its probably not as good as The Dark Knight but I think its the first time we've seen a film really do Batman justice as a complelling character in his own film. The detective work is consistently engaging and gives Batman time to develop a rapport with not just Gordon and Alfred and Catwoman, but minor characters and villains and the works.

Capping off with that ending:

How would folk say it compares to my favourite visual media Batman, the TV Series Gotham?

The city itself feels like Gotham which I think is the killer part. The DK trilogy was just different US cities spliced together and the tiny bit of Gotham we got in the WB stuff didn't really feel different from Metropolis because all those movies were far too dark.
The Gotham show did it well (until it went a bit bananas) and The Batman follows on the same way.

Nice.

Might go see it this weekend.

The movie is fundamentally The Long Halloween, more than the Dark Knight was. As such, the city is far more of a character than past films.

 Lance845 wrote:
Well I definitely like that Joker more than Leto's. But I agree with Ouze. Batman has other compelling villains. Lets see more of them.

My gut is telling me rather strongly that the next film isn't Joker-centric. That's what Marvel would do with that kind of tease, but I don't think his appearance is meant that way. Reeves said he kept it in to make it very clear that things will get worse for Gotham now. It also lets us know that there IS a Joker in that universe. But Reeves talked about there needing to be an emotional journey in these films, so I think he's NOT going to come at it from a 'here's your obligatory Joker film' checklist perspective. The villains will be chosen to serve the story.

Also, I've noticed he's brought up the Arkham series a couple times when talking about this in interviews. Might mean something.

I think the important thing for a sequel is that its not really focused on a specific villain. This movie juggles so many so deftly because they're all pieces to a larger story. I feel like the correct follow up would be something like the Owls or Black Glove (or a hybrid of the two considering their similarities). Given how the Joker is used in the latter story, I can definitely see this version of the Joker being woven in pretty effectively similar to how we see the Penguin here. He just really can't be given center stage.

I REALLY do enjoy that this story is set up for Batman creating the Bruce Wayne Persona. People treat him like the kid because nobody has seen him since he was a kid. He's been a recluse while he traveled around learning to be Batman. And Batman IS who he really is. The stuff with the mayor and the idea that terrifying the criminal element isn't enough. It's all pointing to him realizing that he needs Bruce Wayne to drive social changes while Batman fights the crime element.

It's the first movie to really nail that aspect of Batman as well. That Bruce is a mask he wears for the sake of the mission.

I really hope the next movie is some kind of take on No Man's Land.

I took myself to the The Batman yesterday, and enjoyed it immensely. I don't have a lot of observations that haven't already been made in this thread, but I will say that the movie never felt long to me. It was long-- really long-- but it never really dragged or slowed down. To my amateur eye, that's fine film making.

I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

I actually rather liked that particular scene, as (a) she was right-- all the horrible things that happened to Gotham stemmed from the people she was talking about doing exactly what she said (using the Renewal fund) and (b) it spoke directly to Batman and will probably inspire the creation of his Bruce Wayne persona and his daytime, humanitarian efforts, which will also use the Renewal fund.

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

I actually rather liked that particular scene, as (a) she was right-- all the horrible things that happened to Gotham stemmed from the people she was talking about doing exactly what she said (using the Renewal fund) and (b) it spoke directly to Batman and will probably inspire the creation of his Bruce Wayne persona and his daytime, humanitarian efforts, which will also use the Renewal fund.

Fair enough. Personally I can't stand that stuff. If nothing else it immediately took me out of the film's immersion, my personal disagreements with the specific message and opinion that it was an unnecessary insertion into the film notwithstanding. There were other things too. The new mayor for example. What did she add to the storyline exactly? Other than being someone batman could rescue at the end, pretty much nothing. No epistemologically relevant character traits, no moral message; BUT she does possess a certain 'identity' and that seems, at least to me to be her only reason for being in the plot at all.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I liked it. Liked the dark take on the riddler, liked the look of penguin. Pattinson was a good batman, but couldve done with getting in the gym a bit for the scenes where he's shirtless or in a t shirt. The skinny emo kid doesn't really look like he could handle his suit. Anyway, the batmobile was probably the high point for me. Got to be the best version ever in my opinion, and the chase was great. Not too insane, quite bullitt esque. The things that let it down for me were; the long running time. Some things could've definitely been clipped to reduce butt numbness a little. Alfred was a little off, and a particular line from catwoman, combined with certain other elements that can't be discussed on here, which is a shame because kravitz was decent as Catwoman. Can't win them all though I guess.
.

I actually rather liked that particular scene, as (a) she was right-- all the horrible things that happened to Gotham stemmed from the people she was talking about doing exactly what she said (using the Renewal fund) and (b) it spoke directly to Batman and will probably inspire the creation of his Bruce Wayne persona and his daytime, humanitarian efforts, which will also use the Renewal fund.

There were other things too. The new mayor for example. What did she add to the storyline exactly? Other than being someone batman could rescue at the end, pretty much nothing. No epistemologically relevant character traits, no moral message; BUT she does possess a certain 'identity' and that seems, at least to me to be her only reason for being in the plot at all.

She is there to talk to Bruce and insert the idea that his family's legacy has been one of charity and social support which is reinforced when Alfred talks about the family Legacy. Something Bruce denies throughout the movie because he is so single minded in his mission to be Batman. Her presence at the end when she gets rescued is there to show how people are fighting for change from another angle. That these people are allies that need support. Coupled with Batman not being enough, that things are not getting better when it's just Batman as a monster in the dark, that not only does Batman need to be a symbol of hope for the people who are innocent, but that Bruce needs to be a symbol for social and structural change the way the new Mayor is.

Her character is a perfect reflection of the "more" that Bruce Wayne could and should be doing. And she is pivotal in the story for being an echo and outspoken version of Alfred's unspoken message about what the Waynes used to be and should be through him. She is both a moral message and a call to action.

How you could interpret that as a damsel in distress role is beyond me.

 LunarSol wrote:

My other big gripe is that Pattinson is just... terrible as Bruce. That's kind of the role he's given, being far more of a child that hasn't really allowed himself to become a part of Gotham. In truth, it serves the movie well and gives him room for growth and in many ways the ending serves as an origin story for the Bruce Wayne persona, but its very odd throughout the film for everything to flip to "the grownups are talking" when he's not wearing the mask.

Any complaints I have about Pattinson as Wayne vanish completely under the cowl. He's a phenomenal Batman. As a film, its probably not as good as The Dark Knight but I think its the first time we've seen a film really do Batman justice as a complelling character in his own film. The detective work is consistently engaging and gives Batman time to develop a rapport with not just Gordon and Alfred and Catwoman, but minor characters and villains and the works.

Yes, this is the thing which probably struck me the most in the movie. I had heard very little previews, two friends saw it, one liked it, other didn't. Didn't even see the trailers because honestly I am not such a huge Batman fan though I have seen all the movies.

A constant with Batman movies is that the leads almost without exception cut it big time as Bruce Wayne. Not all of them are great Batman (Batmen?). I suppose this makes sense. A popular handsome Hollywood actor only has to be himself to be a convincing Bruce Wayne. But with Pattinson, it was completely opposite. We see him first as Batman, and this is a great choice because he is pretty damn great in that. Then after some time he puts on the Bruce Wayne guise...and he is terrible. He doesn't come across at all like a billionaire, or even a moderately wealthy person. He is just some average emo kid. It was a really weird dynamic in the movie. Any way, I much better it that way: better to have a great Batman and lousy Bruce Wayne, than other way around.

The glaring problem for me was Catwoman. I think Kravitz was miscast here. She had no chemistry with Pattinson and although she is very beautiful, she lacks the charisma and glamour Pfeiffer and Hathaway brought. On her defence, Catwoman was mis-written too. They tried too hard to make her a sympathetic figure. See, she had horrible childhood, lives in a dump, tries to stand up for her roommate, major daddy issues. Catwoman is a criminal. She might not be actually evil in he fullest sense of the word, but she is not a saint. She lies, steals and cheats, and she occassionally might kill. That's what makes the Batman-Catwoman dynamic exciting: they're conflicted about each other. Here she was just a co-heroine and it destroyed her character. In addition, too much was revealed of her, too soon. Catwoman should have certain mystery around her.

As for the movie in itself....I thought the first half, or maybe two-thirds were fantastic. Slow, sure, and I am not sure how much rewatch value it has, but it felt really dark, moody yet different and original compared to earlier Batman movies. It sold me this Batman just as much as Batman Begins. However, the movie collapses upon itself during the last third. Ending drags too much, revelations about the villains are mostly tepid in nature, and the end scene gets into 'Dark Knight Rises' territory of megalomania not in a good way. And I really hope they don't put the Joker in for the next sequel. Enough already.

Backfire wrote:

The glaring problem for me was Catwoman. I think Kravitz was miscast here. She had no chemistry with Pattinson and although she is very beautiful, she lacks the charisma and glamour Pfeiffer and Hathaway brought. On her defence, Catwoman was mis-written too. They tried too hard to make her a sympathetic figure. See, she had horrible childhood, lives in a dump, tries to stand up for her roommate, major daddy issues. Catwoman is a criminal. She might not be actually evil in he fullest sense of the word, but she is not a saint. She lies, steals and cheats, and she occassionally might kill. That's what makes the Batman-Catwoman dynamic exciting: they're conflicted about each other. Here she was just a co-heroine and it destroyed her character. In addition, too much was revealed of her, too soon. Catwoman should have certain mystery around her.

This is the way Selina Kyle is often portrayed in "prequel" comics. More sympathetic of the criminal nature of the city and often dancing around the actual Catwoman persona as much as possible. I think there's probably as much room to grow her into a more traditional version of the character after the end as there is to see Pattinson take on a more traditional Bruce Wayne.

Maybe, but usually villains get more, not less, symphatetic when their characters are deepened.

You didn't think her mother being killed, her being abandoned by her father, her friend being murdered, and then finding out it was your father that murdered your mother was sympathetic?

Finally saw it a few days ago, currently amidst my second viewing.

Pretty damn amazing. My only complaint is that they made Batman damn near Ironman-esque with the amount of direct hits he took from gunfire.

 Lance845 wrote:
You didn't think her mother being killed, her being abandoned by her father, her friend being murdered, and then finding out it was your father that murdered your mother was sympathetic?

None of that justifies

Don't get me started on her

I just read that Patterson has been signed for the sequel to The Batman.

Need to find a proper link now......

I did see a headline somewhere that a sequel had been confirmed. Didn’t actually read the article though.

That's pretty much all that's been said. Sequel confirmed. FWIW, Pattinson's original contract was for 3 films, so he wasn't really signed for the sequel, its just them confirming that they're going to continue with the agreement.

I liked this movie because the main character was Batman. He was Batman for 90% of the movie.

Most Batman movies, even the truly excellent ones, only have him in the suit during action sequences. The rest of the time it's Bruce Wayne always struggling with the duality of who is is and who Batman is.

Not with this film. It's Batman nearly 100% of the time, and the times where he's Bruce Wayne you can see it's really uncomfortable for him.

Seeing him work with the GCPD, who are in equal parts awe and fear of him, was fantastic. I hope that continues as we move forward in this world. I also really liked how the 'fear' aspect of Batman was emphasised, especially in that opening sequence where the criminals stop their activities just at the thought that Batman might be hiding in that shadow over there. And the Batmobile was less car and more monster. It was excellent.

And I liked the cut Joker scene. I like the idea that the Joker is someone Batman has already 'dealt with' in this universe, and that he visits him Hannibal Lecter style.

I wonder if they're brave enough to keep their powder dry on ole Chuckles until the third movie and do something different with the next one, so everything is already firmly established in this version of the world before Joker escapes Arkham, and then we can have them really go at it for a whole movie.